Civil forfeiture turns lives upside down, ruins families — just like mine



In his recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” legendary investor Marc Andreessen alleged that the Biden administration had secretly “debanked” — that is, closed the bank accounts of — tech founders, crypto founders, and “just generally political opponents.”

“We can’t live in a world where somebody starts a company that’s a completely legal thing and then they literally get sanctioned,” Andreessen said.

If this is news to you, I have a quite story to tell you. It isn’t just tech founders backed by billionaires running into trouble with the small matter of holding on to their money. Let me introduce you to the practice of “civil forfeiture,” which allows law enforcement to seize your assets without a criminal conviction — or even a criminal charge. Yes, the government can take away all of your things based on the mere suspicion that your assets are tied to criminal activity. And if the government takes your money, the burden is on you to prove it is innocent.

Due process ensures I cannot be imprisoned without a jury of my peers finding me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why, then, can my money be taken without the same protections?

In fact, over the past two decades, state and federal governments together have seized over $68.8 billion from Americans. Why haven’t you heard of it? Both anecdotes and statistics tell the story that civil forfeiture is deployed disproportionately against people of color, low-income Americans, and immigrants. The proceeds, in turn, fund law enforcement agencies, providing further incentive to seize more and more.

I can tell you this story because I’ve lived it. Back during the first pandemic summer, I woke one morning to pounding on the glass of my home. I walked to the door with the youngest of my four daughters riding on my hip in a diaper. The unwelcome visitors were wearing their FBI raid jackets. “Open the door!” they shouted. “Warrant!” But the four agents with guns going through my house weren’t my main concern. Two weeks prior, federal prosecutors obtained a different kind of warrant that left us penniless and powerless to defend ourselves from an oncoming legal nightmare.

In 2020, Amazon Web Services accused my husband of a federal crime we’d never heard of: depriving the company of his “honest services” during and after his seven years of employment with the tech titan. Based on Amazon’s allegations, the government then authorized civil forfeiture and seized our family and business bank accounts — including my earnings as the CEO of my startup, the Riveter, and savings from my decade as an attorney.

Fast-forward four years. My husband was never charged with any crime, a federal judge in a related civil case ruled that my husband had complied with the “explicit terms” of Amazon’s employment contract, the Justice Department closed its investigation, and the government returned 85% of the money it took from us — so long as we promised not to sue.

Somehow, this series of events is legal in America.

But the seizure has forever changed our lives. We sold our home, sold our car, and emptied my husband’s retirement account — just to pay our lawyers. Our family of six spent over a year moving between my sister’s basement, my father-in-law’s condo, and my parents’ townhouse, while our girls have attended six different schools and day-care providers in four separate states. When we tried to rent a house for our family, the owner learned of the forfeiture online and required us to pay a year of rent up front. The case’s publicity has obviously devastated my husband’s career but also mine.

For most of American history, civil forfeiture remained a little-known practice. At the time of the nation’s founding, authorities used it primarily to confiscate ships and cargo that violated customs duties. Today, civil forfeiture has gained widespread popularity among law enforcement because, like debanking, it allows the government to seize assets without proving wrongdoing.

Prosecutors gain tremendous leverage by seizing assets. Today, federal prosecutors secure 97% of criminal convictions through guilty pleas rather than trials. Civil forfeiture amplifies this power by leaving defendants unable to afford an attorney to fight back in court — or even provide for their families. Facing such pressure, many defendants fold and accept plea deals, regardless of their innocence. Numerous legal scholars have documented the high rate of guilty pleas among innocent defendants. This dynamic played out in the Justice Department’s investigation of my husband, where prosecutors ultimately vacated multiple guilty pleas from his alleged co-conspirators, saying they were “not in the interest of justice.” Without the threat of forfeiture, would these innocent men have pleaded guilty in the first place?

Bipartisan support for civil forfeiture reform continues to grow. Due process, the only right guaranteed twice by the Constitution, ensures that I cannot be imprisoned without a jury of my peers finding me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why, then, can my money be taken without the same protections? How does due process exist when a government official submits secret allegations made by a private company to a judge without giving me the chance to review or contest those claims?

My family’s story adds another twist to the devastating use of civil forfeiture in America: Here, former FBI and Justice Department employees who now work for Amazon leveraged cozy relationships with their former federal offices to lobby the government to pursue criminal charges and a civil forfeiture case. Indeed, the government’s top prosecutor assured Amazon’s counsel — after Amazon asked for a criminal investigation — that she had specifically “selected” two of her “very best prosecutors” for his “client’s important matter.”

We need reform to protect not just tech founders and political opponents, but folks like me who have been victimized by the unjust practice of civil forfeiture. I don’t know what will happen to my family. While the government’s investigation is closed, prosecutors are now fighting to keep key documents related to its seizure forever under seal, and they’ve failed to return hundreds of thousands of dollars they took all those years ago. But I do know that if our Constitution still means anything today, we must end civil forfeiture.

J6 Committee Dem Points Fingers At DOJ For Not Prosecuting Trump Sooner After Jack Smith Drops Case

'The committee found, you know, a lot of evidence'

Special Counsel Moves To Drop All Charges in Election Interference Case Against Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked a judge to drop all charges in his election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump, citing a Justice Department policy that sitting presidents cannot be indicted or prosecuted.

The post Special Counsel Moves To Drop All Charges in Election Interference Case Against Trump appeared first on .

NBC talking head blanches when Sen. Schmitt rattles off some of the ways the Biden DOJ was weaponized



NBC's Kristen Welker likely regrets trying to paint Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) into a corner Sunday on "Meet the Press." Rather than make the Republican senator squirm, Welker received an earful about some of the ways that President Joe Biden and other Democrats weaponized the Department of Justice against President-elect Donald Trump and other perceived political opponents.

Schmitt expressed support early in the interview for Trump's second pick to run the Department of Justice, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, noting that she's "smart" and "tough."

"It's a great pick."

Welker insinuated that Trump's proposed attorney general would engage in the same conduct the senator has previously criticized, alluding to Bondi's suggestion last year that elements of the DOJ that waged lawfare against Trump in the lead-up to his re-election will eventually face accountability: "The prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones," and the "investigators will be investigated."

'There has to be accountability for these kinds of abuses.'

The NBC talking head noted that Schmitt previously said the DOJ should go "back to fighting crime and not settling scores," then posed the question, "How do you square those two different views?"

Unwilling to accept the premise that the two views were irreconcilable, Schmitt instead suggested that the reckoning to come isn't more weaponization but rather the return of accountability.

"Everybody's seen this weaponization of the Justice Department over the last four years. It really is a tragedy for a once-respected agency that has gone after Catholics; it's gone after parents who showed up to school board meetings under the auspices of the Patriot Act. This is in the United States of America," said Schmitt.

The senator suggested that Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland "clearly weaponized that department ... to go after their chief political opponent. I'll tell you, Kristen, the arc of that story's really terrifying if you care about the republic."

"After the midterms, Joe Biden said that there was no way President Trump would ever be back in the White House. After that speech, these zombie cases were resurrected. The number three person from DOJ went to New York, and you had the Alvin Bragg case," said Schmitt, referencing Matthew Colangelo's migration from a senior position in the Biden DOJ — acting associate attorney general, then principal deputy associate attorney general — to a supporting role trying to kneecap Trump, this time in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office.

"The number two prosecutor in Atlanta went to the White House and coordinated," continued Schmitt, apparently alluding to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' onetime lover Nathan Wade. Wade, whom Willis made top prosecutor in Trump's Georgia election interference case, admitted to having extensive communications with the Biden White House in an Oct. 15 testimony to Congress.

"You saw all these cases resurrected. They all fell apart under the weight of the law," continued Schmitt. "And so, I do think there needs to be accountability. I think that getting it back to crime-fighting is important, but there has to be accountability for these kinds of abuses."

Welker, who appeared frazzled throughout much of Schmitt's response, pressed the senator to explain what the accountability pursued by the Trump DOJ might look like.

"I think accountability means, first and foremost, the people involved in this should be fired immediately," responded the senator. "Anybody part of this effort to keep President Trump off the ballot and to throw him in jail for the rest of his life because they didn't like his politics and to continue to cast him as a 'threat to democracy' was wrong. And so, we'll see where that goes."

Schmitt reiterated that Bondi is "a smart, capable, tough person," noting she "is going to restore respect in that department."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

To Restore Democracy Trump Will Have To Overcome Administrative State Tyranny

The second Trump administration was elected as the antidote to the administrative state — to make radical changes in personnel and policy.

The GOP Establishment Is A Greater Threat To Trump’s Agenda Than Democrats

The defeat of Matt Gaetz’s nomination for attorney general shows that this time, Trump really does have to drain the swamp.

61 years later, JFK assassination records remain hidden — and Biden is to blame



Just days before the anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination on Nov. 23, 1963, Americans are no closer to knowing the whole truth about what happened at Dealey Plaza in Dallas that day. In fact, the Biden administration is taking steps to ensure that the truth may never be known.

On Friday, Oct. 18, Joe Biden’s Justice Department took further action to block the release of secret records related to the assassination. The government filed a summary judgment motion to assert control over congressional records related to JFK’s murder. This marks the latest effort by the Biden administration, which has moved since 2021 to prevent the release of remaining assassination documents held by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Each time the government attempts to conceal or restrict critical information about the assassination, it sparks a massive and visceral public reaction.

The Justice Department’s moves contradict the 1992 John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, which explicitly prohibits the president from exercising authority over congressional and non-executive branch records. The JFK Records Act also mandated the full public disclosure of all assassination records by Oct. 26, 2017.

On Oct. 19, 2022, the nonprofit Mary Ferrell Foundation, a privately operated archive specializing in records related to the Kennedy assassination and other major events of the 1960s and 1970s, filed a lawsuit against Biden and the National Archives. The lawsuit demands the release of all assassination records in compliance with the 2017 statutory deadline. The suit also seeks court orders requiring the National Archives to maintain a complete public directory of assassination record identification forms and fulfill other responsibilities mandated by law.

The idea for the lawsuit emerged after two successive presidential administrations missed the deadline to release all assassination records. However, it was President Biden’s actions after 2021 that triggered the lawsuit. Biden’s decisions effectively dismantled the standards set by the JFK Records Act, allowing executive agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service to withhold records. These agencies, which have long resisted releasing assassination documents, have even admitted to destroying some of the records.

The Justice Department’s motion for summary judgment would undermine the intent of the JFK Records Act. The law aimed to strip executive agencies of their authority over assassination records and establish an accountable, enforceable process for reviewing and releasing these documents. From 1994 to 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board, an independent agency established under the law, issued legally binding orders to review, postpone, or release millions of documents. These decisions ensured that postponements adhered strictly to the limited criteria outlined in section 6 of the law.

The Justice Department’s attempt to assert presidential control over congressional records is especially baffling. Multiple sections of the JFK Records Act explicitly state that the president’s authority applies only to executive branch records. Section 9(d)(1) clearly limits presidential power, underscoring that it does not extend to congressional assassination records.

Section 7(l) of the JFK Records Act explicitly states that the House and Senate Oversight Committees retain ongoing control and oversight over the management of assassination records, even after the ARRB concluded its work.

When Congress passed the JFK Records Act 32 years ago, lawmakers expressed deep concerns that executive branch agencies, with their history of obstructing investigations into the assassination, would continue to block the release of records. The Senate unanimously ratified the Act and filed a report emphasizing its intent, providing an interpretive guide for courts to refer to in cases involving the Act. The Senate’s apprehension about presidential control over congressional records leaves no room for misinterpretation.

Since Kennedy’s assassination 61 years ago, federal agencies have aggressively collected and locked away documents and evidence related to his murder. Each time the government attempts to conceal or restrict critical information about the assassination, it sparks a massive and visceral public reaction. This occurred when the infamous Zapruder film was first broadcast in 1975, 12 years after the assassination, and again after Oliver Stone’s Academy Award-winning 1991 film brought public attention to the government’s secret troves of JFK assassination records.

“The JFK Assassination Chokeholds” chronicles over 60 years of government obstruction surrounding the Kennedy assassination. It details how recent presidential orders have effectively sealed thousands of records from public disclosure, directly violating the unanimous will of Congress and the expressed desires of the American people.

We All Know Why The Biden DOJ Is Ignoring Pennsylvania Democrats’ Election Lawbreaking

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-19-at-2.24.56 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-19-at-2.24.56%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The DOJ refused to comment when asked if it was investigating Pennsylvania counties that disenfranchised voters by counting illegal ballots.

Matt Gaetz brings the fight, but can he beat the Senate swamp?



The Epoch Times on Thursday interviewed me about my views on Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks. The only nominee I expressed reservations about was Matt Gaetz, Trump’s choice for attorney general. But the reason I offered was not quoted fully. I said that while I would certainly vote for Gaetz if I were a U.S. senator, I do not believe he is confirmable. Republican senators like Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would likely oppose his nomination, alongside all Senate Democrats, who will likely vote as a bloc against most of Trump’s nominees.

Gaetz is a troublesome choice for several reasons, starting with allegations of sexual involvement with a 17-year-old girl. The House Ethics Committee has investigated the charge, but its findings have not yet been released. I recognize the double standard at play here. Legacy media defended individuals like Bill Clinton and concealed the appalling misconduct of Democratic donors such as Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein for as long as possible.

The weaponization of federal agencies like the Justice Department and Secret Service against political dissenters will no longer be tolerated.

I also acknowledge that Biden’s administration resembled an intersectional exhibitionist show, featuring figures like Admiral Levine, Sam Brinton, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. These appointments seemed to cater to the Democrats’ identitarian agenda. Notably, many “centrist” Republicans now criticizing Gaetz’s nomination had no problem voting for Biden’s ideologically driven Cabinet selections.

But we are not dealing here with a level playing field, and even conventional Republican outlets like National Review and the Wall Street Journal are railing against Gaetz’s nomination. I’m not sure that I see any way forward for the former Florida congressman. His sexual scandal, his effort to overthrow a Republican speaker of the House, and his flamboyant rhetoric will all be held against him if the confirmation process goes forward.

Let me clarify that, unlike the RINOs and neocons, I do not oppose Gaetz’s nomination because I want an attorney general the left will find inoffensive — someone modeled after Trump’s attorneys general during his first term. I recently heard Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal lament the absence of a nominee with Bill Barr’s moderating influence.

This time, however, Trump appears to want someone in the role who will support him unequivocally. He is not looking for an attorney general who will flaunt nonpartisanship by distancing himself from a president despised by the legacy media. Joe Biden and Barack Obama appointed attorneys general who loyally served their interests and advanced their ideological agendas. Trump has every right to seek an attorney general who will do the same — while demonstrating a greater commitment to justice than those Democratic appointees showed.

Any of the three candidates previously on Trump’s short list would likely be more confirmable as attorney general than Gaetz. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, or former Deputy Attorney General Matthew Whitaker could effectively perform the duties assigned to Gaetz while generating less controversy as nominees.

Let me stress that my reason for opposing Gaetz’s nomination is most definitely not the one probably driving the Bushies and neocon Republicans. I don’t want a “bipartisan” attorney general who will try to get along with with the opposition as we pursue an aggressively liberal internationalist foreign policy. I am hopeful that anyone who becomes attorney general will actively investigate and prosecute those bad actors who abused their positions under the Obama-Biden-Garland administrations.

The D.C. swamp must be drained, and those “public servants” who have gone after the political opposition without just cause and who have threatened religious and social traditionalists should be treated accordingly. They should not only be dismissed from their positions but also prosecuted.

It is crucial to send a clear message to public administrators and Democratic Party leaders: The weaponization of federal agencies like the Justice Department and Secret Service against political dissenters and culturally traditional Americans will no longer be tolerated. Simply turning the page to focus on foreign policy or fiscal issues will not achieve the same impact. Least of all should we pretend that the systematic weaponization of administrative agencies, which has been ongoing since Obama’s presidency, never occurred. Ignoring this history will only embolden the Democrats to resume such practices as soon as they regain power.

This is why any prospective attorney general must not only be up to this task but also be confirmable. Unfortunately, Gaetz does not meet this criterion, which is why his nomination was ill advised. While it is commendable that he has vigorously defended President Trump against baseless, malicious accusations, that alone will not secure his confirmation.

Biden-Harris DOJ drops charges against illegal aliens who allegedly tried to breach US military base



The Biden-Harris administration's Department of Justice has quietly and mysteriously dropped the charges against two Jordanian nationals who allegedly attempted to breach a Virginia military base in May.

Hasan Yousef Hamdan and Mohammad Khair Dabous, both in the country illegally, were accused of attempting to enter Quantico Marine Corps Base near Triangle, Virginia, while posing as Amazon delivery drivers, Blaze News previously reported.

'This whole case is more than curious.'

After they failed to produce access credentials, guards instructed the men to wait in a holding area for a secondary inspection. Instead of following the directive, the men reportedly attempted to proceed into the military base. Guards swiftly deployed vehicle denial barriers and prevented the men from entering.

One of the Jordanian nationals illegally crossed the southern border approximately a month before the incident, and the other man allegedly overstayed a student visa. Due to their illegal immigration status, the men were previously turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but they were released from federal custody.

The two men were facing misdemeanor trespassing charges after the May incident. However, in July, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Virginia ordered their release on the condition that they attend their immigration proceedings and avoid military installations, Blaze News previously reported. They were released from detention after posting bail for their alleged crimes.

On Friday, the Washington Times reported that the Justice Department "quietly dismissed the charges" against Hamdan and Dabous.

The U.S. attorney in eastern Virginia dropped the charges in the interest of "the ends of justice," which the Times referred to as "boilerplate language" that failed to reveal any details about the decision.

Lawyers for the two men blamed the incident on a language barrier, claiming that Dabous was attempting to complete a delivery when he failed to understand the guard's instructions.

The Times reported that by September, it appeared prosecutors believed the event was a misunderstanding, yet they did not move to have the charges dropped until October 3.

Todd Bensman, a senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, told the Times, "This whole case is more than curious."

"The government had many, many opportunities to dispel the notion that there was something more nefarious about this than met the eye. And they took a pass every time," he noted.

Congress requested more information about the incident, but according to House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the Biden-Harris administration has been "delinquent" in answering lawmakers' questions.

Green told the Times, "We are aware that one of these men entered through the southwest border, claimed asylum, and was released into the interior just a month prior to the incident at Quantico."

"The circumstances surrounding this event remain concerning, and I urge the Biden-Harris administration to respond without further delay to Congress and the American people," he said.

The U.S. attorney's office and Hamdan's lawyer declined a request for comment from the Times. Dabous' legal representation did not respond to the news outlet's request.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!